BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM: KURNOOL

Present: Sri. T.SundaraRamaiah, B.Com B.L., President

And

Sri.M.Krishna Reddy, M.Sc., M.Phil., Male Member

And

Smt. S.Nazeerunnisa, B.A., B.L., Lady Member

Tuesday the 6^thday of September, 2011

C.C.No.20/2011

Between:

S.Baleeswara Reddy, Advocate,

H.No.64/43 B-11, Fort Street, Near Saibaba Temple, Kurnool-518001.                 …Complainant

-Vs-

1. The Tahasildar, Tahasildar Office,

   D.No.3/253, C.Belagal Post &Mandalam, Kurnool District-518462.

2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Revenue Divisional Office,

   D.No.41/860 C, Kothapeta, Kurnool City-518001.           ...Opposite ParTies

This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri.S.Baleeswara Reddy, Advocate for complainant and Government Pleader for opposite parties 1 and 2and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.

ORDER

(As per Smt. S.Nazeerunnisa, Lady Member)

C.C. No.20/2011

1.     This complaint is filed under section 12 of C. P. Act, 1986 praying to direct the opposite parties:-

1. To pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) towards mental agony;

1. To pay a sum of Rs.4,40,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Fourty Thousands) as compensation;
   •  
2. To costs of the complaint;
   •  
3. To such other relief as the Honourable Forum deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

2.    The case of the complainant in brief is as under:-The complainant made an application Under Right to Information Act 2005 to the opposite party No.1 on 23-10-2010 requesting to furnish the particulars of assigned lands relating to Devanuru Village from 01-01-2001 to 01-09-2010.  The particulars must contain the name of the assignee, father’s name permanent address, present address, date of assignment, purpose of assignment copy of the assignment order, survey number, extent of the assigned land with boundaries, F.M.B. Extract.  After sending an application the complainant went to the office of the opposite party No.1 number of times to sought for information on 07-12-2010 in R.C.A.278/2010 dated 07-12-2010 enclosing some insufficient informationand directing the complainant to remit an amount as per the R.T.I. Act.  The letter addressed by the opposite party No.1 is beyond 30 days from the date of application of the complainant as such he need not pay any charges as directed by the opposite party No.1.  The complainant made an appeal to opposite party No.2 on 15-12-2010 seeking direction to the opposite party No.1 to furnish the information sought for in his application dated 23-10-2010.  The complainant went to the office of the opposite party No.2 number of times the complainant was not furnished information sought by him.The action of the opposite parties amounts to gross negligence.  An account of the deficiency of service, the complainant has suffered a lot of mental agony.  Hence the complaint is filed.

3.     Opposite party No.1 filed written version and the same is adopted by opposite party No.2.  It is stated in the written version that the complaint is not maintainable.  The complainant is not a Consumer.  There is no privity of the contract between the complainant and opposite parties.  The application of the complainant seeking information under Right to Information Act 2005 was received on 26-10-2010 immediately on the receipt of application the Village Revenue Officer, DevanurVillage, who is custodian of the village records was requested to furnish the copies of the above records.  After obtaining the copies of the records required by the complainant.  Then the TahsildarMiduthur has informed to the complainant that he was unable to furnish the required information as it is long back.  A reply was furnished to the complainant vide this office R.C.A.278/2010 dated 23-11-2010 and it was also acknowledged by the complainant.  The opposite party No.1 furnish a list of 98 beneficiaries with reference to available records relating to assigned Government Lands D Pattas of Devanur Village of MiduthurMandal from 29-04-2002 was furnished to the complainant in R.C.A.No.278/2010 dated 07-12-2010.  There is no much delay in furnishing the required information to the complainant.  The other connected records are filed before the commissioner of inquiries, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad in connection with allegation of irregularities and corruption against N.C.Rajanna former Special Deputy Collector and others.  The other information requested by the complainant was not submitted.Hence the opposite parties are not liable to pay any amount as claimed by him.  The delay is not intentional.   There is no deficiency of service.  Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.     

4.     On behalf of the complainant Ex.A1 to A4 are marked and sworn affidavit of the complainant is filed. On behalf of the opposite parties 1 and 2 Ex.B1 and B2 are marked and sworn affidavit of the opposite parties 1 and 2 are filed.

5.     Both sides filed written arguments.

6.     The points that arise for consideration are:-

1. Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Parties?

1. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed for?

(c)                To what relief?

7.      POINTS 1 & 2:- Admittedly the complainant sent an application Ex.A1 dated 23-10-2010 to opposite party No.1 seeking information under Right to Information Act 2005.  Opposite party No.1 received the said application on 26-10-2010.  According to opposite party no.1 on receipt of the application, after obtaining the copies of the records required by the complainant, the TahsildarMiduthurMandal as informed to the complainant, that he was unable to furnish the required information as it is long back.  On 07-12-2010 a reply was furnished to the complainant vide this office R.C.A.No.278/2010 dated 23-11-2010.  It is marked as Ex.A2 send a list of 98 beneficiaries with reference to available records relating to assignee Government lands D Patttas of Devanur Village of MiduthurMandal from 29-04-2002.  As seen from Ex.A2 it is clear that the opposite party No.1 furnished the information as available on records and further requested to remit an amount of Rs.392/- for A4 and A3 size papers under section 7(1) or (5) (6) and postal charges as per section 4(3) vii of R.T.I. Act for the required records, but the complainant did not choose to pay the amount.  Hence there is no deficiency of service found on the part of opposite party No.1.

8.     The learned counsel for opposite parties contended that the connected records were sent before the commissioner of inquiries Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad in connection with allegation of irregularities and corruption against N.C.Rajanna, former Special Deputy Collector and others.  Hence the other information requested by the complainant was not submitted.  As per Ex.B1 photo copy of letter dated 13-06-2007 by Inspector of Police A.C.B. Kurnool to opposite party No.2 and Ex.B2 photo copy of letter dated 24-01-2011 by opposite party No.1 to Deputy Superintendent of Police A.C.B. Kurnool, it is clear that the connected records were send to the concerned authorities.   So the opposite party No.1 could not furnished the other information.  As such there is no much delay in furnishing the required information to the complainant and hence the opposite party No.1 is not liable to pay any amount as claimed by him.  

9.     The complainant filed an appeal before opposite party No.2, it is marked as Ex.A3 dated 15-12-2010 and Ex.A4 is the acknowledgement of opposite party No.2 dated 15-12-2010.  The available information was furnished by opposite party No.1 to the complainant under Ex.A2 and requested to remit an amount for papers and postal charges under R.T.I. Act but the complainant did not remit the amount.  No negligence is found on the part of the opposite party No.1.  The complainant has not stated in the complainant the purpose for which information is required.  Merely because there was some delay for furnishing the information it cannot be said that the complainant is entitled for compensation.

10.    The complainant also impleaded opposite party No.2 who is an   appellant authority.   Admittedly according to the complainant it is the opposite party No.1 who has to furnish information to him.  Opposite party No.2 is not bound to furnish information to the complainant.  Admittedly no application was made to opposite party No.2 seeking information under Right to Information Act 2005.  Opposite party No.2 is unnecessarily added by the complainant and made the opposite party No.2 incur some legal expenses. No deficiency of service is found on the part of the opposite parties.  The complainant is not entitled for any relief.

11.    In result, the complaint is dismissed without costs.

        Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 6^thday of September, 2011.

Sd/-                                        Sd/-                              Sd/-

MALE MEMBER                      PRESIDENT                 LADY MEMBER

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For the complainant : Nil            For the opposite parties:Nill

List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-

Ex.A1                Photo copy of the application addressed to the

opposite party No.1 dated 23-10-2010.

Ex.A2.       Photo copy of letter in R.C. No. A/278/2010

dated 07-12-2010 addressed by opposite party No.1 to the

complainant along with insufficient information furnished by the opposite party No.1.

Ex.A3                Photo copy of the first appeal addressed to the

opposite party No.2 dated 15-12-2010.

Ex.A4                Photo copy of courier receipt and acknowledgement of the

opposite party No.2 dated 15-12-2010.

List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:-

Ex.B1                Photo copy of letter dated 13-06-2007 by Inspector of

Police A.C.B Kurnool to opposite party No.2.    

Ex.B2        Photo copy of letter dated 24-01-2011 by opposite party No.1 to Deputy Superintendent of Police A.C.B. Kurnool.

Sd/-                                        Sd/-                              Sd/-

MALE MEMBER                 PRESIDENT                   LADY MEMBER

    // Certified free copy communicated under Rule 4 (10) of the A.P.S.C.D.R.C. Rules, 1987//

Copy to:-

Complainant and Opposite parties  :

Copy was made ready on             :

Copy was dispatched on               :